A bipartisan bill has been submitted in both houses of the US Congress, a year after the US withdrew from Afghanistan, allowing the Taliban to seize power and sparking a catastrophic refugee crisis. With the passage of this Act, thousands of Afghan evacuees who were previously granted temporary immigration status will now have a clear road to citizenship. Similar versions of the legislation were introduced only days before the first anniversary of the disorderly evacuation operation that ended America's longest war, saw the Taliban take over Kabul and the last US troops leave the country.

Watch |&nbsp;Schools to remain shut for girls in Afghanistan till new rules are drawn up

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/schools-to-remain-shut-for-girls-in-afghanistan-till-new-rules-are-drawn-up-505348/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

According to Reuters, the bill would also extend eligibility for Special Immigration Visas (SIVs) to Afghan women who served in special counterterrorism teams as well as commandos and air force personnel who fought with US forces.

Democratic Representative Earl Blumenauer and Republican Representative Peter Meijer, who are co-sponsors of the House legislation, said in a statement, "We must keep our commitment to provide safe, legal refuge to those who willingly put their lives on the line to support the US&nbsp;mission in Afghanistan."

A large portion of the 76,000 Afghans who were evacuated from their home country last year arrived in the country under humanitarian parole, a temporary immigration status that usually only lasts up to two years.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/top-pakistani-taliban-leader-killed-in-ied-attack-in-afghanistan-505051" hreflang="en">Top Pakistani Taliban leader killed in IED attack in Afghanistan</a>

Pending additional background checks, the proposal would enable those evacuees to make an application for permanent legal status.&nbsp;

Typically, these Afghans can only obtain long-term legal status in the US by submitting an application for asylum or through the severely backlogged SIV programmes.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/taliban-honoring-hero-afghan-soldier-in-kabul-who-killed-unarmed-australians-504779" hreflang="en">Taliban honouring 'Hero' Afghan soldier in Kabul who killed unarmed Australian diggers</a>

The Afghanistan Adjustment Act's chances of passing were increased when three minority Republicans, including Senator Lindsey Graham, joined three majority Democrats in introducing an identical version of the bill in the Senate's thinly divided senate.&nbsp;However, a congressional aide who spoke to Reuters&nbsp;on the condition of anonymity said the legislation will probably encounter "resistance" from a few anti-immigration Republicans.

(With inputs from agencies)

Watch WION LIVE HERE:

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

A bipartisan bill has been submitted in both houses of the US Congress, a year after the US withdrew from Afghanistan, allowing the Taliban to seize power and sparking a catastrophic refugee crisis.

A bipartisan bill has been submitted in both houses of the US Congress, a year after the US withdrew from Afghanistan, allowing the Taliban to seize power and sparking a catastrophic refugee crisis. With the passage of this Act, thousands of Afghan evacuees who were previously granted temporary immigration status will now have a clear road to citizenship. Similar versions of the legislation were introduced only days before the first anniversary of the disorderly evacuation operation that ended America's longest war, saw the Taliban take over Kabul and the last US troops leave the country. Watch | Schools to remain shut for girls in Afghanistan till new rules are drawn up According to Reuters, the bill would also extend eligibility for Special Immigration Visas (SIVs) to Afghan women who served in special counterterrorism teams as well as commandos and air force personnel who fought with US forces. Democratic Representative Earl Blumenauer and Republican Representative Peter Meijer, who are co-sponsors of the House legislation, said in a statement, "We must keep our commitment to provide safe, legal refuge to those who willingly put their lives on the line to support the US mission in Afghanistan." A large portion of the 76,000 Afghans who were evacuated from their home country last year arrived in the country under humanitarian parole, a temporary immigration status that usually only lasts up to two years. Also read | Top Pakistani Taliban leader killed in IED attack in Afghanistan Pending additional background checks, the proposal would enable those evacuees to make an application for permanent legal status. Typically, these Afghans can only obtain long-term legal status in the US by submitting an application for asylum or through the severely backlogged SIV programmes. Also read | Taliban honouring 'Hero' Afghan soldier in Kabul who killed unarmed Australian diggers The Afghanistan Adjustment Act's chances of passing were increased when three minority Republicans, including Senator Lindsey Graham, joined three majority Democrats in introducing an identical version of the bill in the Senate's thinly divided senate. However, a congressional aide who spoke to Reuters on the condition of anonymity said the legislation will probably encounter "resistance" from a few anti-immigration Republicans. (With inputs from agencies) Watch WION LIVE HERE: You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

A year after it abandoned Afghanistan, US introduces bill to give thousands of Afghans path to citizenship

Taking note of the Taliban's victory over the US military in Afghanistan, the US Congress voted on Wednesday to create a commission to assess the 20-year war's failures.

After similar overwhelming approval last week by the House of Representatives, the Senate passed the $768 billion annual defence package 89-10.&nbsp;

President Joe Biden, whose controversial withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan ended America's longest war, is expected to sign the National Defense Authorization Act.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/painkiller-epidemic-us-targets-chinese-firms-for-addiction-that-claimed-100000-lives-last-year-437262" hreflang="en">'Painkiller epidemic': US targets Chinese firms for addiction that claimed 100,000 lives last year</a>

The Commission on Afghanistan will consist of 16 members appointed by the two major parties. It was given a deadline to produce a preliminary report within one year of its first meeting, followed by a final report within three years.

"The Commission shall conduct a comprehensive assessment of the war in Afghanistan and make recommendations to inform future operations with tactical and strategic lessons learned, including the impact of troop increases and decreases and date-certain deadlines," the legislation said.

After taking office in 2009, President Barack Obama sent tens of thousands of troops to Afghanistan, but later withdrew most of them.&nbsp;

During the administration of his successor Donald Trump, a deal was then negotiated with the Taliban that set a May 2021 deadline for the departure of US troops.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-develops-new-software-to-predict-actions-that-can-trigger-outsized-chinese-reactions-437252" hreflang="en">US develops new software to predict actions that can trigger 'outsized' Chinese reactions</a>

In addition, the commission will examine George W. Bush's launch of the war and US policy toward Afghanistan before 2001, when the September 11 attacks triggered the US invasion that overthrew the Taliban's draconian rule.

Taiwan also received strong congressional support in the National Defense Authorization Act amid rising tensions with China, which claims Taiwan as part of its territory awaiting reunification.

A provision of the act calls on the United States to develop Taiwan's asymmetric defence capabilities and to invite Taiwan to participate in the Rim of the Pacific exercise in 2022, a major US-led exercise that takes place every two years around Hawaii.

Watch |&nbsp;Gravitas: U.S-UAE rift? Emiratis threaten to scrap F-35 deal

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-us-uae-rift-emiratis-threaten-to-scrap-f-35-deal-437235/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

As a result of the bill, US defence spending will increase by $28 billion from last year, most of the increase not requested by the Biden administration.

It includes a raise of 2.7 per cent for both military service members and civilian workers at the Defense Department.

(With inputs from agencies)

Taking note of the Taliban's victory over the US military in Afghanistan, the US Congress voted on Wednesday to create a commission to assess the 20-year war's failures.

Taking note of the Taliban's victory over the US military in Afghanistan, the US Congress voted on Wednesday to create a commission to assess the 20-year war's failures. After similar overwhelming approval last week by the House of Representatives, the Senate passed the $768 billion annual defence package 89-10. President Joe Biden, whose controversial withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan ended America's longest war, is expected to sign the National Defense Authorization Act. Also read | 'Painkiller epidemic': US targets Chinese firms for addiction that claimed 100,000 lives last year The Commission on Afghanistan will consist of 16 members appointed by the two major parties. It was given a deadline to produce a preliminary report within one year of its first meeting, followed by a final report within three years. "The Commission shall conduct a comprehensive assessment of the war in Afghanistan and make recommendations to inform future operations with tactical and strategic lessons learned, including the impact of troop increases and decreases and date-certain deadlines," the legislation said. After taking office in 2009, President Barack Obama sent tens of thousands of troops to Afghanistan, but later withdrew most of them. During the administration of his successor Donald Trump, a deal was then negotiated with the Taliban that set a May 2021 deadline for the departure of US troops. Also read | US develops new software to predict actions that can trigger 'outsized' Chinese reactions In addition, the commission will examine George W. Bush's launch of the war and US policy toward Afghanistan before 2001, when the September 11 attacks triggered the US invasion that overthrew the Taliban's draconian rule. Taiwan also received strong congressional support in the National Defense Authorization Act amid rising tensions with China, which claims Taiwan as part of its territory awaiting reunification. A provision of the act calls on the United States to develop Taiwan's asymmetric defence capabilities and to invite Taiwan to participate in the Rim of the Pacific exercise in 2022, a major US-led exercise that takes place every two years around Hawaii. Watch | Gravitas: U.S-UAE rift? Emiratis threaten to scrap F-35 deal As a result of the bill, US defence spending will increase by $28 billion from last year, most of the increase not requested by the Biden administration. It includes a raise of 2.7 per cent for both military service members and civilian workers at the Defense Department. (With inputs from agencies)

US sets up commission to assess Afghanistan failures

US&nbsp;national security adviser Jake Sullivan said on Tuesday that the&nbsp;Taliban has vowed to&nbsp;provide safe passage for civilians to reach the airport in&nbsp;Afghanistan's capital Kabul.

Some 3,200 people have been evacuated by the US military so far, a White House official said, including 1,100 on Tuesday alone, US citizens, permanent residents, and their families on 13 flights.

Washington wants to complete the exodus before its August 31 withdrawal deadline, and thousands of US soldiers were at the airport as the Pentagon planned to ramp up flights of its huge C-17 transport jets to as many as two dozen a day.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-biden-defends-pull-out-blames-afghan-army-406401/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

"The Taliban have informed us that they are prepared to provide the safe passage of civilians to the airport, and we intend to hold them to that commitment," Sullivan said.

"We believe that this can go till the 31st. We are talking to them about what the exact timetable is for how this will all play out, and I don't want to negotiate in public on working out the best modality to get the most people out in the most efficient way," Sullivan added.

Also see|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/inside-pictures-of-plane-at-kabul-airport-as-afghans-battle-to-flee-taliban-rule-406237" hreflang="en">Inside pictures of plane at Kabul airport as Afghans battle to flee Taliban rule</a>

Sullivan said it is premature to say whether the United States recognizes the Taliban as the legitimate governing power in&nbsp;Afghanistan.

"Right now there is a chaotic situation in Kabul where we don't even have the establishment of a governing authority," Sullivan said. "Ultimately, it's going to be up to the Taliban to show the rest of the world who they are and how they intend to proceed. The track record has not been good but it's premature to address that question at this point."

Sullivan said most people seeking to leave&nbsp;Afghanistan&nbsp;have been able to reach the airport, but the United States is addressing with the Taliban some reports of people being turned away.

"This is an hour-by-hour issue, and it's something we're very clear-eyed about, and very focused on holding the Taliban accountable to follow through on its execution," he said.

White House spokeswoman Jan Psaki said there are about 11,000 people in&nbsp;Afghanistan&nbsp;who have identified themselves as Americans, adding that there may be others "who may not have self-identified who may come and request assistance and come to the airport."

Psaki said the United States is prioritising the evacuation of American citizens, embassy employees and their families, locally employed Afghan staff and holders of and applicants for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) available to interpreters and others who assisted the United States in&nbsp;Afghanistan.

Ask what the consequences could be if the Taliban does not stick to its commitment, she said: "The consequences are the full weight and force of the United States military, and I think we've made that clear."

"We're not trusting, we're not taking their word for it. We are watching closely, we are in close contact and we are certainly assessing whether they are going to abide by their commitments," Psaki added.

Army Major General William Taylor, with the US&nbsp;military's Joint Staff, told a news briefing earlier on Tuesday that 4,000 US&nbsp;troops would be at the airport by the end of the day,&nbsp;an increase of 1,000,&nbsp;and the aim is to have one flight taking off per hour.

(With inputs from agencies)

US national security adviser Jake Sullivan said on Tuesday that the Taliban has vowed to provide safe passage for civilians to reach the airport in Afghanistan's capital Kabul.

US national security adviser Jake Sullivan said on Tuesday that the Taliban has vowed to provide safe passage for civilians to reach the airport in Afghanistan's capital Kabul. Some 3,200 people have been evacuated by the US military so far, a White House official said, including 1,100 on Tuesday alone, US citizens, permanent residents, and their families on 13 flights. Washington wants to complete the exodus before its August 31 withdrawal deadline, and thousands of US soldiers were at the airport as the Pentagon planned to ramp up flights of its huge C-17 transport jets to as many as two dozen a day. "The Taliban have informed us that they are prepared to provide the safe passage of civilians to the airport, and we intend to hold them to that commitment," Sullivan said. "We believe that this can go till the 31st. We are talking to them about what the exact timetable is for how this will all play out, and I don't want to negotiate in public on working out the best modality to get the most people out in the most efficient way," Sullivan added. Also see| Inside pictures of plane at Kabul airport as Afghans battle to flee Taliban rule Sullivan said it is premature to say whether the United States recognizes the Taliban as the legitimate governing power in Afghanistan. "Right now there is a chaotic situation in Kabul where we don't even have the establishment of a governing authority," Sullivan said. "Ultimately, it's going to be up to the Taliban to show the rest of the world who they are and how they intend to proceed. The track record has not been good but it's premature to address that question at this point." Sullivan said most people seeking to leave Afghanistan have been able to reach the airport, but the United States is addressing with the Taliban some reports of people being turned away. "This is an hour-by-hour issue, and it's something we're very clear-eyed about, and very focused on holding the Taliban accountable to follow through on its execution," he said. White House spokeswoman Jan Psaki said there are about 11,000 people in Afghanistan who have identified themselves as Americans, adding that there may be others "who may not have self-identified who may come and request assistance and come to the airport." Psaki said the United States is prioritising the evacuation of American citizens, embassy employees and their families, locally employed Afghan staff and holders of and applicants for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) available to interpreters and others who assisted the United States in Afghanistan. Ask what the consequences could be if the Taliban does not stick to its commitment, she said: "The consequences are the full weight and force of the United States military, and I think we've made that clear." "We're not trusting, we're not taking their word for it. We are watching closely, we are in close contact and we are certainly assessing whether they are going to abide by their commitments," Psaki added. Army Major General William Taylor, with the US military's Joint Staff, told a news briefing earlier on Tuesday that 4,000 US troops would be at the airport by the end of the day, an increase of 1,000, and the aim is to have one flight taking off per hour. (With inputs from agencies)

Kabul evacuation: US says Taliban has pledged 'safe passage'

Recent reports reveal that President Joe Biden's administration has held secret talks with more countries than previously known in a desperate attempt to secure deals for temporarily housing at-risk Afghans working for the US government.&nbsp;

Seeing the Taliban's advances as a threat to those still awaiting Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), Washington is looking for third countries to host them until their paperwork is completed and they can come to the United States, as per a Reuter's report.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/taliban-ban-covid-19-vaccine-in-eastern-afghanistans-paktia-province-report-405235" hreflang="en">Taliban ban COVID-19 vaccine in Eastern Afghanistan's Paktia province: Report</a>

An official in the know says that an agreement to house about 8,000 Afghans in Qatar, a country that has a large US military base, has been close for weeks, but no official announcement has been made.

Afghanistan nationals who served as interpreters and/or performed other jobs,&nbsp;for the US government, can apply to the SIV program.

So far, approximately 1,200 Afghans have been evacuated to the United States under "Operation Allies Refuge" with an additional 3,500 expected in the coming weeks. Some Afghans will be taken to a US military base in Virginia for paperwork and some will go directly to US hosts.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghanistan-nato-eu-un-confirm-they-will-not-recognise-govt-formed-through-military-405223" hreflang="en">Afghanistan: NATO, EU, UN confirm they will not recognise govt formed through military</a>

Taking into account the Taliban's rapid advance in Afghanistan, the United States has decided to send around 1,000 personnel to Qatar to expedite the processing of SIVs.

Countries hesitant

As per two US officials, who wanted to stay anonymous, concerns surround the quality of security vetting and health screening in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/coronavirus">COVID-19</a> process before the Afghans could fly, resulting in some countries hesitating to accept the Afghans.

The Biden administration explored having Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan accept thousands of applicants, but that effort has so far proved ineffective.

"There's concerns that you might expect: 'Who are these people? How do you know these people? Can you assure that these people will get visas to the United States? Who's going to care for and feed these people. What happens if these people wander off this facility you've got them in?" a senior State Department official said.

After encountering reluctance from some countries, the US has turned to others who might be willing to help, in exchange for assistance.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/wion-gravitas-afghan-peace-talks-hit-a-deadlock-has-the-us-failed-208235/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

For taking in several thousand Afghans, the United States has offered concessions to Kosovo in economic and political terms, but officials are concerned about the country's capacity to house the new arrivals.

The 1,200 Afghans evacuated represent less than 1 per cent of the 21,000 people on the SIV pipeline, and the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/joe-biden">Biden</a> administration has been struggling to find temporary housing for the evacuees.

When family members are counted, advocates estimate that 50,000 and 80,000 people will be evacuated under the SIV program.

(With inputs from agencies)

Recent reports reveal that President Joe Biden's administration has held secret talks with more countries than previously known in a desperate attempt to secure deals for temporarily housing at-risk Afghans working for the US government.

Recent reports reveal that President Joe Biden's administration has held secret talks with more countries than previously known in a desperate attempt to secure deals for temporarily housing at-risk Afghans working for the US government. Seeing the Taliban's advances as a threat to those still awaiting Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), Washington is looking for third countries to host them until their paperwork is completed and they can come to the United States, as per a Reuter's report. Also read | Taliban ban COVID-19 vaccine in Eastern Afghanistan's Paktia province: Report An official in the know says that an agreement to house about 8,000 Afghans in Qatar, a country that has a large US military base, has been close for weeks, but no official announcement has been made. Afghanistan nationals who served as interpreters and/or performed other jobs, for the US government, can apply to the SIV program. So far, approximately 1,200 Afghans have been evacuated to the United States under "Operation Allies Refuge" with an additional 3,500 expected in the coming weeks. Some Afghans will be taken to a US military base in Virginia for paperwork and some will go directly to US hosts. Also read | Afghanistan: NATO, EU, UN confirm they will not recognise govt formed through military Taking into account the Taliban's rapid advance in Afghanistan, the United States has decided to send around 1,000 personnel to Qatar to expedite the processing of SIVs. Countries hesitant As per two US officials, who wanted to stay anonymous, concerns surround the quality of security vetting and health screening in the COVID-19 process before the Afghans could fly, resulting in some countries hesitating to accept the Afghans. The Biden administration explored having Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan accept thousands of applicants, but that effort has so far proved ineffective. "There's concerns that you might expect: 'Who are these people? How do you know these people? Can you assure that these people will get visas to the United States? Who's going to care for and feed these people. What happens if these people wander off this facility you've got them in?" a senior State Department official said. After encountering reluctance from some countries, the US has turned to others who might be willing to help, in exchange for assistance. For taking in several thousand Afghans, the United States has offered concessions to Kosovo in economic and political terms, but officials are concerned about the country's capacity to house the new arrivals. The 1,200 Afghans evacuated represent less than 1 per cent of the 21,000 people on the SIV pipeline, and the Biden administration has been struggling to find temporary housing for the evacuees. When family members are counted, advocates estimate that 50,000 and 80,000 people will be evacuated under the SIV program. (With inputs from agencies)

Seeking asylum for SIV applicants: A desperate bid by the Biden administration

Foreign forces should hold 'no hope' of keeping a military presence in Afghanistan after the US and NATO withdraw troops, the Taliban said Saturday, warning the security of embassies and airports would be the responsibility of Afghans.

It comes as western diplomats and military officials scramble to work out how to provide security for any future civilian presence they keep in the country.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-says-diplomatic-presence-in-kabul-requires-functioning-secure-airport-390997">US says diplomatic presence in Kabul requires 'functioning, secure airport'</a>

Turkey has reportedly said it is prepared to keep troops in Afghanistan to protect Kabul airport, the main exit route for western diplomats and humanitarian workers.&nbsp;

"Every inch of Afghan soil, its airports and security of foreign embassies and diplomatic offices is the responsibility of the Afghans, consequently no one should hold out hope of keeping military or security presence in our country," a statement issued by the Taliban on Saturday said.

"If anyone does make such a mistake, the Afghan people and the Islamic Emirate shall view them as occupiers and shall take a stance against them," it added.

The United States is in the final stages of completing a military drawdown, alongside NATO forces, by September 11, twenty years after they invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-pullout-from-afghanistan-half-done-but-questions-remain-390140">US pullout from Afghanistan half done, but questions remain</a>

The decision to end America's longest war has raised fears that an emboldened Taliban could topple the Western-backed government in Kabul.&nbsp;

The possibility of keeping troops in Afghanistan is expected to be discussed during a meeting of NATO leaders in Brussels on Monday.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said last month the alliance would provide funding to help run Kabul airport and train Afghanistan's special forces after it had left.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/turkey-should-pull-troops-from-afghanistan-under-2020-accord-taliban-390837">Turkey should pull troops from Afghanistan under 2020 accord: Taliban</a>

Turkish media later reported that Ankara was willing to maintain a presence in the country, including at the country's main gateway, if NATO provided financial support.

The Taliban has attempted to calm foreign missions by saying they could "continue their operations as usual" after Australia closed its embassy citing an "increasingly uncertain security environment".

The militants have in recent weeks made territorial gains in and around the country, including in provinces close to the capital.

On Saturday, at least seven civilians were killed in two separate explosions in the city, the Interior Ministry said, the latest in a series of bombings targeting buses.&nbsp;

There was no immediate claim of responsibility.

Foreign forces should hold 'no hope' of keeping a military presence in Afghanistan after the US and NATO withdraw troops, the Taliban said Saturday, warning the security of embassies and airports would be the responsibility of Afghans.

Foreign forces should hold 'no hope' of keeping a military presence in Afghanistan after the US and NATO withdraw troops, the Taliban said Saturday, warning the security of embassies and airports would be the responsibility of Afghans. It comes as western diplomats and military officials scramble to work out how to provide security for any future civilian presence they keep in the country. Also read | US says diplomatic presence in Kabul requires 'functioning, secure airport' Turkey has reportedly said it is prepared to keep troops in Afghanistan to protect Kabul airport, the main exit route for western diplomats and humanitarian workers. "Every inch of Afghan soil, its airports and security of foreign embassies and diplomatic offices is the responsibility of the Afghans, consequently no one should hold out hope of keeping military or security presence in our country," a statement issued by the Taliban on Saturday said. "If anyone does make such a mistake, the Afghan people and the Islamic Emirate shall view them as occupiers and shall take a stance against them," it added. The United States is in the final stages of completing a military drawdown, alongside NATO forces, by September 11, twenty years after they invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban. Also read | US pullout from Afghanistan half done, but questions remain The decision to end America's longest war has raised fears that an emboldened Taliban could topple the Western-backed government in Kabul. The possibility of keeping troops in Afghanistan is expected to be discussed during a meeting of NATO leaders in Brussels on Monday. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said last month the alliance would provide funding to help run Kabul airport and train Afghanistan's special forces after it had left. Also read | Turkey should pull troops from Afghanistan under 2020 accord: Taliban Turkish media later reported that Ankara was willing to maintain a presence in the country, including at the country's main gateway, if NATO provided financial support. The Taliban has attempted to calm foreign missions by saying they could "continue their operations as usual" after Australia closed its embassy citing an "increasingly uncertain security environment". The militants have in recent weeks made territorial gains in and around the country, including in provinces close to the capital. On Saturday, at least seven civilians were killed in two separate explosions in the city, the Interior Ministry said, the latest in a series of bombings targeting buses. There was no immediate claim of responsibility.

Taliban says security of airports, embassies to be 'Afghan responsibility'

The United States announced on Friday, more than $266 million in additional humanitarian aid for Afghanistan, intended mainly for its <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/coronavirus">COVID-19</a> response, as foreign troops continue their withdrawal from the country.

"As the United States withdraws military forces from Afghanistan, our enduring commitment is clear," top US diplomat Antony Blinken said.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/lot-of-fear-in-pakistan-pm-imran-khan-on-troop-pullout-in-afghanistan-389538">'Lot of fear' in Pakistan, PM Imran Khan on troop pullout in Afghanistan</a>

"We remain engaged through our full diplomatic, economic and assistance toolkit to support the peaceful, stable future the Afghan people want and deserve."

The aid is intended for areas such as protective equipment, shelter, food and health and hygiene services related to the Covid pandemic. It also provides for "protection needs for the most vulnerable Afghans," including at-risk women and girls.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/as-us-troops-leave-afghanistan-lawmakers-fear-dark-future-for-women-380965">As US troops leave Afghanistan, lawmakers fear dark future for women</a>

The $266.5 million, made up of $157.5 million from American aid agency USAID and $109 million from the State Department, brings total US humanitarian aid to Afghanistan in fiscal years 2020 and 2021 to $543 million.

Washington has still not made a decision on whether to evacuate Afghan interpreters, who worked with the US military, now fearing for their lives as foreign troops pull out.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/first-doses-of-covid-19-vaccine-arrive-in-afghanistan-from-india-361940">First doses of COVID-19 vaccine arrive in Afghanistan from India</a>

Twenty members of Congress on Friday appealed to President Joe Biden in an open letter on Friday to "immediately" evacuate the more than 18,000 interpreters and their families, who have filed for visas to come to the United States.

<iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/afghans-who-helped-us-fear-being-left-behind-and-reprisals-by-taiwan-385647/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe>

Each application "takes an average of 800+ days, and we plan to withdraw in less than 100 days," the bipartisan elected officials say in the letter.

No American entity "has the ability or authority to protect them in Afghanistan after our withdrawal. It would be a moral failure to transfer the responsibility to protect our Afghan partners onto the shoulders of the Afghan Government."

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/children-risk-generational-catastrophe-from-covid-19-watchdog-389109">Children risk 'generational catastrophe' from COVID-19: Watchdog</a>

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said on Friday the White House had not ordered the military to evacuate the interpreters.

"We're aware of some congressional interest in this," he said, "but nothing has changed since last time we talked about this."

The United States announced on Friday, more than $266 million in additional humanitarian aid for Afghanistan, intended mainly for its COVID-19 response, as foreign troops continue their withdrawal from the country.

The United States announced on Friday, more than $266 million in additional humanitarian aid for Afghanistan, intended mainly for its COVID-19 response, as foreign troops continue their withdrawal from the country. "As the United States withdraws military forces from Afghanistan, our enduring commitment is clear," top US diplomat Antony Blinken said. Also Read | 'Lot of fear' in Pakistan, PM Imran Khan on troop pullout in Afghanistan "We remain engaged through our full diplomatic, economic and assistance toolkit to support the peaceful, stable future the Afghan people want and deserve." The aid is intended for areas such as protective equipment, shelter, food and health and hygiene services related to the Covid pandemic. It also provides for "protection needs for the most vulnerable Afghans," including at-risk women and girls. Also Read | As US troops leave Afghanistan, lawmakers fear dark future for women The $266.5 million, made up of $157.5 million from American aid agency USAID and $109 million from the State Department, brings total US humanitarian aid to Afghanistan in fiscal years 2020 and 2021 to $543 million. Washington has still not made a decision on whether to evacuate Afghan interpreters, who worked with the US military, now fearing for their lives as foreign troops pull out. Also Read | First doses of COVID-19 vaccine arrive in Afghanistan from India Twenty members of Congress on Friday appealed to President Joe Biden in an open letter on Friday to "immediately" evacuate the more than 18,000 interpreters and their families, who have filed for visas to come to the United States. Each application "takes an average of 800+ days, and we plan to withdraw in less than 100 days," the bipartisan elected officials say in the letter. No American entity "has the ability or authority to protect them in Afghanistan after our withdrawal. It would be a moral failure to transfer the responsibility to protect our Afghan partners onto the shoulders of the Afghan Government." Also Read | Children risk 'generational catastrophe' from COVID-19: Watchdog Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said on Friday the White House had not ordered the military to evacuate the interpreters. "We're aware of some congressional interest in this," he said, "but nothing has changed since last time we talked about this."

US sending $266.5 million in aid to Afghanistan for Covid response

More than a fortnight has elapsed since February 29, 2020, when the United States of America (USA) entered into a historic, though unique, 'Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan'&nbsp;with the so-called Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (better known as Taliban and notorious for its violent acts of terrorism).&nbsp;

The deal is historic as it promises to put an end to a prolonged but inconclusive war between the USA and Taliban on Afghan soil spread over a period of nearly two decades. It is unique to the extent that a sovereign country and superpower namely the USA has signed the deal with a terrorist organisation which it doesn’t even recognise as a state, whereas the democratically elected government in Afghanistan never participated in the talks. &nbsp;

The main and obvious objective of the deal is to pave the way for the withdrawal of the US and NATO forces from Afghanistan over a period of fourteen months; by doing so President Trump will fulfil his promise to Americans back home, significantly in the year in which he is seeking his re-election. In return, the Taliban assures that no individual or group would be allowed to operate from the Afghan soil against the security of the US and its allies. &nbsp;

It is apparent that the deal is essentially between the USA and the Taliban. The destiny of Afghanistan is left to be settled between the Afghans through so-called inclusive intra-Afghan talks between the Taliban and all other stakeholders in Afghanistan including the elected government.&nbsp;

The intra-Afghan talks, as per the deal were expected to commence on March 10, 2020, with the objective of reaching an agreement on a comprehensive and permanent cease-fire and future political roadmap for Afghanistan.&nbsp;

By available indications, the intra-Afghan talks appear to be facing serious roadblocks and are nowhere close to a smooth take-off. First and foremost, violent attacks by the Taliban against Afghan forces continue unabated. According to the Afghanistan National Security Council statement, the Taliban had carried out at least 76 attacks across 24 Afghan Provinces within one week of concluding the peace deal.&nbsp;

Further, the deal envisages the release of 5000 Taliban prisoners as a confidence-building measure for the commencement of intra-Afghan talks. The Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani, after initial reluctance, announced (through an official Decree) that starting March 14, 1500 Taliban prisoners would be released as a 'goodwill gesture', provided the released prisoners give 'a written guarantee to not return to the battlefield'. He further promised to release the remaining 3500 prisoners after the commencement of talks. The Taliban rejected the proposed staggered release of prisoners insisting that the release of 5000 prisoners was a part of the deal. The matters stand further complicated by the announcement (March 14) of the Afghan government to postpone the release of prisoners on the plea that the government needed more time to review the list of prisoners.&nbsp;

A long-standing political rivalry between President Ashraf Ghani and his former Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah is yet another factor which may influence the fate of the intra-Afghanistan talks. The feud between the two became sharper recently when the Afghan Independent Election Commission finally declared (mid-February) the incumbent Ashraf Ghani as the winner in September 2019 Presidential elections. Abdullah Abdullah declined to accept the verdict and has now formed a parallel government through his own inauguration on March 9- the day Ashraf Ghani was sworn – in as President. If the two leaders remain at loggerheads, the chances are that even if intra-Afghan talks do commence in the near future, the talks will not be inclusive. &nbsp;&nbsp;

It remains to be seen as to how the situation in Afghanistan unfolds in forthcoming weeks and months. The USA has found a way for its 'honourable'&nbsp;exit from Afghanistan. But will peace ever return to Afghanistan? Will the USA keep aloof so long as its own security interests remain unaffected or will it come back to Afghanistan’s rescue if the Afghans, including Taliban, fail to reach an amicable solution for themselves and the Taliban doesn’t give up violence?&nbsp;

Meanwhile, the developments in Afghanistan, particularly the US withdrawal, should be a matter of concern to India. Peace and security in Afghanistan is of utmost importance for India. The USA has secured assurances from the Taliban for itself and its allies. India’s security concerns for sure did not figure anywhere in the deal. India and the USA are no doubt 'comprehensive global strategic partners'&nbsp;but India is not an ally of the USA. &nbsp;

India enjoys significant goodwill amongst Afghanis but has little leverage to influence the situation in that country to its advantage. India’s concerns go beyond the security of its personnel and huge investments in Afghanistan. Pakistan, currently under tremendous pressure from FATF, may find it prudent to relocate the anti-India terror outfits to Afghanistan and thereby absolve itself of any accountability for terrorist activities against &nbsp;India from its soil. &nbsp;

Will India be an Onlooker? Perhaps no, as India has learnt by now that it&nbsp;must be prepared to defend its interests on its own, even if global efforts are needed to combat the global menace of terrorism.&nbsp; 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

More than a fortnight has elapsed since February 29, 2020, when the United States of America (USA) entered into a historic, though unique, 'Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan' with the so-called Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (better known as Taliban and notorious for its violent acts of terrorism).

More than a fortnight has elapsed since February 29, 2020, when the United States of America (USA) entered into a historic, though unique, 'Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan' with the so-called Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (better known as Taliban and notorious for its violent acts of terrorism). The deal is historic as it promises to put an end to a prolonged but inconclusive war between the USA and Taliban on Afghan soil spread over a period of nearly two decades. It is unique to the extent that a sovereign country and superpower namely the USA has signed the deal with a terrorist organisation which it doesn’t even recognise as a state, whereas the democratically elected government in Afghanistan never participated in the talks. The main and obvious objective of the deal is to pave the way for the withdrawal of the US and NATO forces from Afghanistan over a period of fourteen months; by doing so President Trump will fulfil his promise to Americans back home, significantly in the year in which he is seeking his re-election. In return, the Taliban assures that no individual or group would be allowed to operate from the Afghan soil against the security of the US and its allies. It is apparent that the deal is essentially between the USA and the Taliban. The destiny of Afghanistan is left to be settled between the Afghans through so-called inclusive intra-Afghan talks between the Taliban and all other stakeholders in Afghanistan including the elected government. The intra-Afghan talks, as per the deal were expected to commence on March 10, 2020, with the objective of reaching an agreement on a comprehensive and permanent cease-fire and future political roadmap for Afghanistan. By available indications, the intra-Afghan talks appear to be facing serious roadblocks and are nowhere close to a smooth take-off. First and foremost, violent attacks by the Taliban against Afghan forces continue unabated. According to the Afghanistan National Security Council statement, the Taliban had carried out at least 76 attacks across 24 Afghan Provinces within one week of concluding the peace deal. Further, the deal envisages the release of 5000 Taliban prisoners as a confidence-building measure for the commencement of intra-Afghan talks. The Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani, after initial reluctance, announced (through an official Decree) that starting March 14, 1500 Taliban prisoners would be released as a 'goodwill gesture', provided the released prisoners give 'a written guarantee to not return to the battlefield'. He further promised to release the remaining 3500 prisoners after the commencement of talks. The Taliban rejected the proposed staggered release of prisoners insisting that the release of 5000 prisoners was a part of the deal. The matters stand further complicated by the announcement (March 14) of the Afghan government to postpone the release of prisoners on the plea that the government needed more time to review the list of prisoners. A long-standing political rivalry between President Ashraf Ghani and his former Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah is yet another factor which may influence the fate of the intra-Afghanistan talks. The feud between the two became sharper recently when the Afghan Independent Election Commission finally declared (mid-February) the incumbent Ashraf Ghani as the winner in September 2019 Presidential elections. Abdullah Abdullah declined to accept the verdict and has now formed a parallel government through his own inauguration on March 9- the day Ashraf Ghani was sworn – in as President. If the two leaders remain at loggerheads, the chances are that even if intra-Afghan talks do commence in the near future, the talks will not be inclusive. It remains to be seen as to how the situation in Afghanistan unfolds in forthcoming weeks and months. The USA has found a way for its 'honourable' exit from Afghanistan. But will peace ever return to Afghanistan? Will the USA keep aloof so long as its own security interests remain unaffected or will it come back to Afghanistan’s rescue if the Afghans, including Taliban, fail to reach an amicable solution for themselves and the Taliban doesn’t give up violence? Meanwhile, the developments in Afghanistan, particularly the US withdrawal, should be a matter of concern to India. Peace and security in Afghanistan is of utmost importance for India. The USA has secured assurances from the Taliban for itself and its allies. India’s security concerns for sure did not figure anywhere in the deal. India and the USA are no doubt 'comprehensive global strategic partners' but India is not an ally of the USA. India enjoys significant goodwill amongst Afghanis but has little leverage to influence the situation in that country to its advantage. India’s concerns go beyond the security of its personnel and huge investments in Afghanistan. Pakistan, currently under tremendous pressure from FATF, may find it prudent to relocate the anti-India terror outfits to Afghanistan and thereby absolve itself of any accountability for terrorist activities against India from its soil. Will India be an Onlooker? Perhaps no, as India has learnt by now that it must be prepared to defend its interests on its own, even if global efforts are needed to combat the global menace of terrorism. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

US-Taliban peace deal:  Recent developments in Afghanistan a matter of concern to India

A day after the United States signed a<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/taliban-begins-diplomatic-outreach-following-peace-deal-with-us-283536"> peace accord with the Taliban insurgents </a>paving way for the withdrawal of foreign forces&nbsp;from war-torn Afghanistan, Iran dismissed the deal saying that America had no right to decide on the country's future.

"The United States has no legal right to sign a peace agreement or to decide the future of Afghanistan," the Iranian foreign ministry said in a statement.

On Saturday, &nbsp;the US and the Taliban signed an agreement in Doha that paves the way for a 14-month timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Afghanistan, provided the militants open talks with Kabul and fulfil their other promises.

Also read:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghanistans-partial-truce-will-continue-with-goal-for-full-ceasefire-ashraf-ghani-283568"> Afghanistan's partial truce will continue, 'with goal' for full ceasefire: Ashraf Ghani</a>

It views the US move as an attempt to "legitimise its troops' presence in Afghanistan", Iran stated while calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops.

Their presence "is illegal and is one of the main causes of the war and insecurity in that country", said Iran in the statement.

While saying it welcomes any initiative that helps to secure stability and peace in Afghanistan, Iran said that will be possible only through domestic talks and consideration of the interests of Afghanistan's neighbours.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/whats-in-the-landmark-us-taliban-deal-283511">What's in the landmark US-Taliban deal?</a>

A&nbsp;lasting peace deal could "only be achieved through inter-Afghan dialogue with the participation of all political groups, including the Taliban, and taking into account the considerations of neighbouring countries."

Ahead of the official signing ceremony, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had warned Iran against trying to scuttle the agreement.

Also read:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/road-ahead-not-easy-says-pentagon-chief-as-us-taliban-sign-afghan-peace-deal-283516">&nbsp;'Road ahead not easy', says Pentagon chief as US-Taliban sign Afghan peace deal</a>

"There is a history of Iran engaging in activity inside of Afghanistan to act as a spoiler," Pompeo said.

Tensions have sharply escalated between Tehran and Washington since May 2018, when US President Donald Trump withdrew from a deal that gave Iran relief from sanctions in return for curbs on its nuclear programme.

The arch enemies have appeared to come to the brink of an all-out confrontation twice since then.

(With inputs from agencies)

A day after the United States signed a peace accord with the Taliban insurgents paving way for the withdrawal of foreign forces from war-torn Afghanistan, Iran dismissed the deal saying that America had no right to decide on the country's future.

A day after the United States signed a peace accord with the Taliban insurgents paving way for the withdrawal of foreign forces from war-torn Afghanistan, Iran dismissed the deal saying that America had no right to decide on the country's future. "The United States has no legal right to sign a peace agreement or to decide the future of Afghanistan," the Iranian foreign ministry said in a statement. On Saturday, the US and the Taliban signed an agreement in Doha that paves the way for a 14-month timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Afghanistan, provided the militants open talks with Kabul and fulfil their other promises. Also read: Afghanistan's partial truce will continue, 'with goal' for full ceasefire: Ashraf Ghani It views the US move as an attempt to "legitimise its troops' presence in Afghanistan", Iran stated while calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops. Their presence "is illegal and is one of the main causes of the war and insecurity in that country", said Iran in the statement. While saying it welcomes any initiative that helps to secure stability and peace in Afghanistan, Iran said that will be possible only through domestic talks and consideration of the interests of Afghanistan's neighbours. Also read: What's in the landmark US-Taliban deal? A lasting peace deal could "only be achieved through inter-Afghan dialogue with the participation of all political groups, including the Taliban, and taking into account the considerations of neighbouring countries." Ahead of the official signing ceremony, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had warned Iran against trying to scuttle the agreement. Also read: 'Road ahead not easy', says Pentagon chief as US-Taliban sign Afghan peace deal "There is a history of Iran engaging in activity inside of Afghanistan to act as a spoiler," Pompeo said. Tensions have sharply escalated between Tehran and Washington since May 2018, when US President Donald Trump withdrew from a deal that gave Iran relief from sanctions in return for curbs on its nuclear programme. The arch enemies have appeared to come to the brink of an all-out confrontation twice since then. (With inputs from agencies)

US had 'no right' to sign peace agreement: Iran opposes Afghan deal with Taliban

Afghanistan since the Taliban regime fell in 2001

The&nbsp;United States on Thursday accused Afghanistan's government of failing to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/10-killed-in-car-bomb-attack-in-southern-afghanistan-governor-250502">fight corruption</a> and cut more than $160 million in direct funding, little over a week before the country's elections.

"We stand against those who exploit their positions of power and influence to deprive the Afghan people of the benefits of foreign assistance and a more prosperous future," Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement.

Pompeo said that the United States was suspending work with the Afghan body in charge of monitoring corruption as it is "incapable of being a partner."

"We expect the Afghan government to demonstrate a clear commitment to fight corruption, to serve the Afghan people and to maintain their trust," he said. &nbsp;

"Afghan leaders who fail to meet this standard should be held accountable."

Pompeo said the United States was taking back $100 million committed for a major energy project, saying that Washington would instead fund it directly rather than sending the money to Afghan authorities.

He also said the United States would withhold $60 million in planned assistance to Afghanistan's procurement authority.

While Washington has long complained of graft in Afghanistan, the last-minute criticism comes after friction with President Ashraf Ghani over US talks with the Taliban.

Ghani, who is up for re-election on September 28, voiced strong concern over a draft accord with the Taliban under which the United States would withdraw troops.

President Donald Trump, who had invited Ghani and the Taliban to the United States, eventually declared the talks dead, citing an attack by the insurgents that killed a US soldier.

Trump has been eager to pull out troops and end America's longest-ever war, launched after the September 11, 2001 attacks. 
&nbsp;

The United States on Thursday accused Afghanistan's government of failing to fight corruption and cut more than $160 million in direct funding, little over a week before the country's elections.

The United States on Thursday accused Afghanistan's government of failing to fight corruption and cut more than $160 million in direct funding, little over a week before the country's elections. "We stand against those who exploit their positions of power and influence to deprive the Afghan people of the benefits of foreign assistance and a more prosperous future," Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement. Pompeo said that the United States was suspending work with the Afghan body in charge of monitoring corruption as it is "incapable of being a partner." "We expect the Afghan government to demonstrate a clear commitment to fight corruption, to serve the Afghan people and to maintain their trust," he said. "Afghan leaders who fail to meet this standard should be held accountable." Pompeo said the United States was taking back $100 million committed for a major energy project, saying that Washington would instead fund it directly rather than sending the money to Afghan authorities. He also said the United States would withhold $60 million in planned assistance to Afghanistan's procurement authority. While Washington has long complained of graft in Afghanistan, the last-minute criticism comes after friction with President Ashraf Ghani over US talks with the Taliban. Ghani, who is up for re-election on September 28, voiced strong concern over a draft accord with the Taliban under which the United States would withdraw troops. President Donald Trump, who had invited Ghani and the Taliban to the United States, eventually declared the talks dead, citing an attack by the insurgents that killed a US soldier. Trump has been eager to pull out troops and end America's longest-ever war, launched after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

US accuses Afghan government of not fighting corruption, cuts aid

President Donald Trump said Thursday that the United States plans to reduce the number of American troops in Afghanistan from 14,000 to 8,600 and then will determine further drawdowns.

'US Troops Would Remain in Afghanistan' says Donald Trump

The United States President Donald Trump on Monday said he will leave a strong intelligence presence in Afghanistan even after US troops depart from the country. He also termed the country "Harvard of terrorists" while he was speaking in a video interview.

"We will be leaving very strong intelligence, far more than you would normally think," Trump said in an interview with Fox News.

"It just seems to be a lab for terrorists... I call it the Harvard of terrorists," he said.

"I've wanted to pull them out," Trump said of US troops who have been fighting in the country since 2001.

But he said he hesitates due what he described as advice from the military that it is preferable to fight terrorists there than at home -- echoing an argument advanced by George W&nbsp;Bush's administration.

Trump's comments come with rival Afghans set to start meeting in Qatar on Sunday in a fresh attempt to make political headway as the United States seeks a peace deal with the Taliban within three months.

After Syria, Donald Trump in December last year announced to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.&nbsp;

Following Trump's announcement, Pentagon had also announced the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-to-withdraw-significant-number-of-troops-from-afghanistan-official-185569"> withdrawal of around 7,000 troops from Afghanistan</a> which amounts to the removal of half of the total US forces deployed in the country at present. So far no timeline has been fixed&nbsp;

About 20,000 foreign troops, most of them American, are in Afghanistan as part of a US-led NATO mission to train, assist and advise Afghan forces. Some US forces carry out counter-terrorism operations.

Watch: Why is Afghanistan a fertile ground for ISIS?

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-why-is-afghanistan-a-fertile-ground-for-isis-226355/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

At least 3,804 civilians were killed in the war last year, according to the United Nations. Thousands of Afghan soldiers, police and Taliban were also killed.

(With inputs from news agencies)

The United States President Donald Trump on Monday said he will leave a strong intelligence presence in Afghanistan even after US troops depart from the country.

The United States President Donald Trump on Monday said he will leave a strong intelligence presence in Afghanistan even after US troops depart from the country. He also termed the country "Harvard of terrorists" while he was speaking in a video interview. "We will be leaving very strong intelligence, far more than you would normally think," Trump said in an interview with Fox News. "It just seems to be a lab for terrorists... I call it the Harvard of terrorists," he said. "I've wanted to pull them out," Trump said of US troops who have been fighting in the country since 2001. But he said he hesitates due what he described as advice from the military that it is preferable to fight terrorists there than at home -- echoing an argument advanced by George W Bush's administration. Trump's comments come with rival Afghans set to start meeting in Qatar on Sunday in a fresh attempt to make political headway as the United States seeks a peace deal with the Taliban within three months. After Syria, Donald Trump in December last year announced to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. Following Trump's announcement, Pentagon had also announced the withdrawal of around 7,000 troops from Afghanistan which amounts to the removal of half of the total US forces deployed in the country at present. So far no timeline has been fixed About 20,000 foreign troops, most of them American, are in Afghanistan as part of a US-led NATO mission to train, assist and advise Afghan forces. Some US forces carry out counter-terrorism operations. Watch: Why is Afghanistan a fertile ground for ISIS? × At least 3,804 civilians were killed in the war last year, according to the United Nations. Thousands of Afghan soldiers, police and Taliban were also killed. (With inputs from news agencies)

US will keep strong intel presence in Afghanistan even after troops withdrawal: Trump

By Michael Semple

When members of the Taliban’s Political Commission in Doha sat down with US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad on January 21, talks were expected to last only a couple of days. Instead, the two sides talked for six days. By the end of the week, many Afghans hoped there might even be a ceasefire announcement.

Eventually, an exhausted Khalilzad flew to Kabul, to brief the Afghan government and political leaders that there was progress but no final deal. Members of the Taliban told researchers working with me that the negotiators were cautiously optimistic. They had concluded that a peace deal might actually be attainable.

But, in the following days, contradictory narratives circulated among the Taliban about what peace might look like, and the price they were prepared to pay for it. These narratives provided a timely reminder that preparing an armed movement to embrace an end to the violent conflict is an immense political challenge, for the leaders of that movement, for mediators and for the battlefield enemies.

A victory narrative

The Taliban fighters in Afghanistan are predominantly millennials and many carry phones and post on Facebook. They took up the positive tone and celebrated the prospect that the war would end and peace would come. Theirs was an uncomplicated message, with no political caveats.&nbsp;

This was a remarkable development as, until now, Taliban popular discourse had typically portrayed “peace” as a foreign conspiracy to undermine the legitimate jihad.

As an indicator of the Taliban mood, on the day after Khalilzad’s departure, an audio of a tarana, or ballad, was widely circulated on WhatsApp. It articulates a narrative of victory, envisaging a Taliban army, in their signature white turbans, sweeping across the country.

Taliban veterans described to me a gulf in perceptions, with uninformed juniors thinking the war is about to end, while senior figures know that there is no deal.

According to the Taliban victory narrative, by agreeing to negotiate with the Taliban, the Americans have accepted that they have been defeated in Afghanistan and just want to extricate their troops safely. Because the Afghan government in Kabul is entirely dependent on external support, the Taliban can easily topple it. Hardliners push this victory narrative to argue they don’t even need any further negotiations, as the Americans are bound to leave anyway.

Meanwhile, in their official internal briefings to the fighters, circulated as audio messages over WhatsApp that I have heard, Taliban spokesmen maintained a calculated ambiguity, compatible with both the victory narrative and that of a negotiated peace. The spokesmen confirmed in these messages that the Taliban delegation had discussed withdrawal of foreign troops, which is the main Taliban demand. But they denied reports that there had been any agreement on a ceasefire or to include the Afghan government in talks, both of which contradict the victory narrative. And they confirmed that talks would resume after consultation with the Afghan Taliban’s leadership, based in Pakistan.

How to compromise

The dilemma underlying these contrasting Taliban narratives concerns the legitimacy and necessity of compromise at the end of a war. The potential peace deal taking shape in Afghanistan would involve a ceasefire, a negotiation about the future of governance among the Afghan parties and an incremental withdrawal of US troops.

For the Taliban, even this simple framework represents a compromise. Until now, they have pledged to fight until the last foreign troops leave, refused to negotiate with the Afghan government and ruled out any power-sharing arrangement.

After the Doha round of talks in January, the Taliban negotiators seem ready to contemplate some degree of compromise, but have had to refer to the leadership – whose decision-making is deliberately opaque. My ongoing research into Taliban political culture indicates that the leadership has assembled a long list of arguments against the very notion of a negotiated settlement.

They feel compromise is unnecessary because the US will inevitably withdraw its troops before the 2020 US election, with or without a deal. The Taliban leadership is also concerned that hint of a compromise would undermine the jihadi spirit which motivates their troops. A compromise could split the movement or make it impossible to resume the conflict if a deal fell apart. They also fear appearing to betray the blood of the martyrs sacrificed in the hope of total victory.

The Taliban has championed the idea of an emirate as a political system vesting all power and authority with their supreme leader. Power-sharing would amount to a renunciation of this idea of emirate. Less spoken about, but historically a key consideration for the Taliban leadership, is the issue of jihadi solidarity. Any deal would mean renunciation of the al-Qaeda relationship. Almost two decades ago, the then Taliban emir, Mullah Omar, refused to give up Osama bin Laden to the Americans. Breaking solidarity with al-Qaeda and fellow mujahideen would still be a bitter pill for a Taliban leader.

Different pressures

The leadership’s final argument is one around pressure. The Taliban embraced talks because they felt under political pressure from Pakistan and countries in the region to sit down. The leadership may calculate that, by showing up for talks, they have done enough to mitigate that pressure and that blaming the US for the lack of a deal may be an acceptable outcome.

Whether there is now any real progress towards peace depends, in large part, on how these arguments are resolved within the Taliban movement. That the leadership has acknowledged that its representatives are engaged in serious talks is a significant step forward. But the leadership itself has not yet embraced compromise, nor has it taken any steps to prepare the movement for a settlement short of total victory.

The default position for the Taliban leadership would be to let talks drag on for a while and then double down on the strategy of jihad until victory by launching a spring offensive. However, what has changed since Khalilzad launched his peace initiative in October 2018 is that more Taliban have come to contemplate an end to the war and even some senior figures have concluded that this can only be achieved by compromise.

Afghanistan is still probably a long way away from a peace deal. But the shift in Taliban calculus is a helpful foundation for the next stage of peacemaking. 
&nbsp; 
(Michael Semple is Visiting Research Professor, Queen's University Belfast)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/afghanistan-the-tensions-inside-the-taliban-over-recent-us-peace-talks-110734">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

 
&nbsp;

By Michael Semple When members of the Taliban’s Political Commission in Doha sat down with US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad on January 21, talks were expected to last only a couple of days.

By Michael Semple When members of the Taliban’s Political Commission in Doha sat down with US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad on January 21, talks were expected to last only a couple of days. Instead, the two sides talked for six days. By the end of the week, many Afghans hoped there might even be a ceasefire announcement. Eventually, an exhausted Khalilzad flew to Kabul, to brief the Afghan government and political leaders that there was progress but no final deal. Members of the Taliban told researchers working with me that the negotiators were cautiously optimistic. They had concluded that a peace deal might actually be attainable. But, in the following days, contradictory narratives circulated among the Taliban about what peace might look like, and the price they were prepared to pay for it. These narratives provided a timely reminder that preparing an armed movement to embrace an end to the violent conflict is an immense political challenge, for the leaders of that movement, for mediators and for the battlefield enemies. A victory narrative The Taliban fighters in Afghanistan are predominantly millennials and many carry phones and post on Facebook. They took up the positive tone and celebrated the prospect that the war would end and peace would come. Theirs was an uncomplicated message, with no political caveats. This was a remarkable development as, until now, Taliban popular discourse had typically portrayed “peace” as a foreign conspiracy to undermine the legitimate jihad. As an indicator of the Taliban mood, on the day after Khalilzad’s departure, an audio of a tarana, or ballad, was widely circulated on WhatsApp. It articulates a narrative of victory, envisaging a Taliban army, in their signature white turbans, sweeping across the country. Taliban veterans described to me a gulf in perceptions, with uninformed juniors thinking the war is about to end, while senior figures know that there is no deal. According to the Taliban victory narrative, by agreeing to negotiate with the Taliban, the Americans have accepted that they have been defeated in Afghanistan and just want to extricate their troops safely. Because the Afghan government in Kabul is entirely dependent on external support, the Taliban can easily topple it. Hardliners push this victory narrative to argue they don’t even need any further negotiations, as the Americans are bound to leave anyway. Meanwhile, in their official internal briefings to the fighters, circulated as audio messages over WhatsApp that I have heard, Taliban spokesmen maintained a calculated ambiguity, compatible with both the victory narrative and that of a negotiated peace. The spokesmen confirmed in these messages that the Taliban delegation had discussed withdrawal of foreign troops, which is the main Taliban demand. But they denied reports that there had been any agreement on a ceasefire or to include the Afghan government in talks, both of which contradict the victory narrative. And they confirmed that talks would resume after consultation with the Afghan Taliban’s leadership, based in Pakistan. How to compromise The dilemma underlying these contrasting Taliban narratives concerns the legitimacy and necessity of compromise at the end of a war. The potential peace deal taking shape in Afghanistan would involve a ceasefire, a negotiation about the future of governance among the Afghan parties and an incremental withdrawal of US troops. For the Taliban, even this simple framework represents a compromise. Until now, they have pledged to fight until the last foreign troops leave, refused to negotiate with the Afghan government and ruled out any power-sharing arrangement. After the Doha round of talks in January, the Taliban negotiators seem ready to contemplate some degree of compromise, but have had to refer to the leadership – whose decision-making is deliberately opaque. My ongoing research into Taliban political culture indicates that the leadership has assembled a long list of arguments against the very notion of a negotiated settlement. They feel compromise is unnecessary because the US will inevitably withdraw its troops before the 2020 US election, with or without a deal. The Taliban leadership is also concerned that hint of a compromise would undermine the jihadi spirit which motivates their troops. A compromise could split the movement or make it impossible to resume the conflict if a deal fell apart. They also fear appearing to betray the blood of the martyrs sacrificed in the hope of total victory. The Taliban has championed the idea of an emirate as a political system vesting all power and authority with their supreme leader. Power-sharing would amount to a renunciation of this idea of emirate. Less spoken about, but historically a key consideration for the Taliban leadership, is the issue of jihadi solidarity. Any deal would mean renunciation of the al-Qaeda relationship. Almost two decades ago, the then Taliban emir, Mullah Omar, refused to give up Osama bin Laden to the Americans. Breaking solidarity with al-Qaeda and fellow mujahideen would still be a bitter pill for a Taliban leader. Different pressures The leadership’s final argument is one around pressure. The Taliban embraced talks because they felt under political pressure from Pakistan and countries in the region to sit down. The leadership may calculate that, by showing up for talks, they have done enough to mitigate that pressure and that blaming the US for the lack of a deal may be an acceptable outcome. Whether there is now any real progress towards peace depends, in large part, on how these arguments are resolved within the Taliban movement. That the leadership has acknowledged that its representatives are engaged in serious talks is a significant step forward. But the leadership itself has not yet embraced compromise, nor has it taken any steps to prepare the movement for a settlement short of total victory. The default position for the Taliban leadership would be to let talks drag on for a while and then double down on the strategy of jihad until victory by launching a spring offensive. However, what has changed since Khalilzad launched his peace initiative in October 2018 is that more Taliban have come to contemplate an end to the war and even some senior figures have concluded that this can only be achieved by compromise. Afghanistan is still probably a long way away from a peace deal. But the shift in Taliban calculus is a helpful foundation for the next stage of peacemaking. (Michael Semple is Visiting Research Professor, Queen's University Belfast) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

US peace talks: The tensions within Taliban

More than 17 years after the US invasion of Afghanistan, Washington and the Taliban appear closer than ever to some sort of agreement that could bring the insurgents to the table for peace talks.

However with the withdrawal of US troops seen as part of the deal, fears are rising about what an American exit could mean for Afghanistan, with security forces taking staggering losses, the government facing election upheaval, and civilians paying a disproportionate price after nearly two decades of bloodshed.&nbsp;

Here is a rundown of the status of the talks and what can be expected in the future.

What has happened so far?

The US and Taliban representatives have held several rounds of negotiations in recent months, part of a diplomatic push to get the insurgents to agree to peace talks.&nbsp;

The latest session ended in Qatar on Saturday after six straight days of negotiations — the longest consecutive sit-down between the two sides to date.&nbsp;

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan — the only countries to recognise the Taliban regime of the late 1990s — have also all participated in the talks, but the Afghan government has complained of being cut out of them. &nbsp;

The militants are negotiating from a position of strength: they have the upper hand on the battlefield, and US President Donald Trump's reported eagerness to start withdrawing troops from Afghanistan is weighing heavy on the discussions.

What is the goal of the talks?

Ostensibly to find a way to bring the Taliban to the table for peace negotiations with the government in Kabul to end the Afghan conflict.

Doing so would require some movement on longstanding demands from both sides. For the Taliban, that includes a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign forces in Afghanistan, while the US is seeking promises that Afghanistan will not be used again as a base for militants to launch attacks on foreign countries.

Other issues include a potential ceasefire, a prisoners exchange, and ways to bring the Taliban into the political mainstream without undermining the legitimacy of the elected government in Kabul.&nbsp;

The Taliban is widely believed to want a return to power in Afghanistan and to reimpose shariah law, although there is some uncertainty over whether they might loosen their hardline stance after a US exit.

What have they decided?

Nothing yet. But it is believed the US and Taliban have come closer to an agreement than ever before. For now, the two sides have agreed to keep talking.

US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, who is heading the initiative for Washington, appeared upbeat, saying late Saturday that the talks were "more productive than they have been in the past. We made significant progress on vital issues".

But he added: "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and 'everything' must include an intra-Afghan dialogue and comprehensive ceasefire."

The Taliban also cited progress, though spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said reports of an 18-month withdrawal plan and a ceasefire are "not true".

What happens next?

Khalilzad has said he is returning to Kabul for consultations and is likely hold a range of meetings with the Afghan government.

The Taliban have said they are planning to "share details of the meetings and receive guidance" from their leaders before moving forward, and vowed to resume "similar future meetings".

More talks are expected soon, but neither side has given any clarity on when, or when a deal might be announced.&nbsp;

Even if one is reached in the near future, it will only be the beginning of a peace process. A withdrawal would need to be managed carefully to prevent the collapse of Afghan security forces, and any negotiations between the Taliban and the Kabul government could take months, if not years.&nbsp;

What does it mean for future peace?

"There are too many unknowns... this is just a beginning," analyst Borhan Osman told AFP. "Nobody should underestimate the complexity and delicacy of the way forward from here."

The major sticking point remains the Taliban's flat refusal to speak with the Afghan government, whom the insurgents brand as "puppets" of the West.

Even if the US and Taliban can agree on a mechanism that would bring the militants to the table with Kabul, however, then any specifics will be the subject of "thorny negotiations, in a long battle of wills among more stakeholders than the Taliban and the US", Osman warned.

Last year Afghan President Ashraf Ghani offered a peace plan which encompassed a ceasefire and called for bringing the Taliban into the political mainstream.

However, the Taliban's response was lukewarm at the time and experts said they had no reason to expect that stance to change.

"The Taliban will not agree to a power-sharing deal," Afghan analyst Nazar Mohammad Mutmaeen told AFP.

A US exit without some sort of rapport between the Taliban and Kabul could be disastrous.&nbsp;

There are fears that Afghan security forces — already taking what experts have described as "unsustainable" losses — could break down along ethnic lines, unleashing an even bloodier civil war or even ushering in the return of a Taliban regime. 
&nbsp;

More than 17 years after the US invasion of Afghanistan, Washington and the Taliban appear closer than ever to some sort of agreement that could bring the insurgents to the table for peace talks.

More than 17 years after the US invasion of Afghanistan, Washington and the Taliban appear closer than ever to some sort of agreement that could bring the insurgents to the table for peace talks. However with the withdrawal of US troops seen as part of the deal, fears are rising about what an American exit could mean for Afghanistan, with security forces taking staggering losses, the government facing election upheaval, and civilians paying a disproportionate price after nearly two decades of bloodshed. Here is a rundown of the status of the talks and what can be expected in the future. What has happened so far? The US and Taliban representatives have held several rounds of negotiations in recent months, part of a diplomatic push to get the insurgents to agree to peace talks. The latest session ended in Qatar on Saturday after six straight days of negotiations — the longest consecutive sit-down between the two sides to date. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan — the only countries to recognise the Taliban regime of the late 1990s — have also all participated in the talks, but the Afghan government has complained of being cut out of them. The militants are negotiating from a position of strength: they have the upper hand on the battlefield, and US President Donald Trump's reported eagerness to start withdrawing troops from Afghanistan is weighing heavy on the discussions. What is the goal of the talks? Ostensibly to find a way to bring the Taliban to the table for peace negotiations with the government in Kabul to end the Afghan conflict. Doing so would require some movement on longstanding demands from both sides. For the Taliban, that includes a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign forces in Afghanistan, while the US is seeking promises that Afghanistan will not be used again as a base for militants to launch attacks on foreign countries. Other issues include a potential ceasefire, a prisoners exchange, and ways to bring the Taliban into the political mainstream without undermining the legitimacy of the elected government in Kabul. The Taliban is widely believed to want a return to power in Afghanistan and to reimpose shariah law, although there is some uncertainty over whether they might loosen their hardline stance after a US exit. What have they decided? Nothing yet. But it is believed the US and Taliban have come closer to an agreement than ever before. For now, the two sides have agreed to keep talking. US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, who is heading the initiative for Washington, appeared upbeat, saying late Saturday that the talks were "more productive than they have been in the past. We made significant progress on vital issues". But he added: "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and 'everything' must include an intra-Afghan dialogue and comprehensive ceasefire." The Taliban also cited progress, though spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said reports of an 18-month withdrawal plan and a ceasefire are "not true". What happens next? Khalilzad has said he is returning to Kabul for consultations and is likely hold a range of meetings with the Afghan government. The Taliban have said they are planning to "share details of the meetings and receive guidance" from their leaders before moving forward, and vowed to resume "similar future meetings". More talks are expected soon, but neither side has given any clarity on when, or when a deal might be announced. Even if one is reached in the near future, it will only be the beginning of a peace process. A withdrawal would need to be managed carefully to prevent the collapse of Afghan security forces, and any negotiations between the Taliban and the Kabul government could take months, if not years. What does it mean for future peace? "There are too many unknowns... this is just a beginning," analyst Borhan Osman told AFP. "Nobody should underestimate the complexity and delicacy of the way forward from here." The major sticking point remains the Taliban's flat refusal to speak with the Afghan government, whom the insurgents brand as "puppets" of the West. Even if the US and Taliban can agree on a mechanism that would bring the militants to the table with Kabul, however, then any specifics will be the subject of "thorny negotiations, in a long battle of wills among more stakeholders than the Taliban and the US", Osman warned. Last year Afghan President Ashraf Ghani offered a peace plan which encompassed a ceasefire and called for bringing the Taliban into the political mainstream. However, the Taliban's response was lukewarm at the time and experts said they had no reason to expect that stance to change. "The Taliban will not agree to a power-sharing deal," Afghan analyst Nazar Mohammad Mutmaeen told AFP. A US exit without some sort of rapport between the Taliban and Kabul could be disastrous. There are fears that Afghan security forces — already taking what experts have described as "unsustainable" losses — could break down along ethnic lines, unleashing an even bloodier civil war or even ushering in the return of a Taliban regime.

US-Taliban talks: As hopes rise of a deal, what comes next?

The Taliban warned the United States Thursday it would face the same fate as the Soviet Union in the 1980s if it did not leave Afghanistan, as Washington considers slashing troop numbers.

In a taunting message sent on the 39th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of the war-torn country, the Taliban said US forces faced "humiliation" and could "learn a great deal" from the experience of their Cold War foe.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-outlines-plan-to-confidence-building-measures-with-afghan-taliban-offers-safety-network-to-rebels-186849">US</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-outlines-plan-to-confidence-building-measures-with-afghan-taliban-offers-safety-network-to-rebels-186849"> offers to release Afghan Taliban captives, jobs in return of ceasefire</a>

The Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989, ending a decade-long occupation and precipitating a bloody civil war and the emergence of the Taliban.

"Take heed from the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan and abandon thoughts of testing the mettle of the already proven Afghans," Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said in a statement in English, Dari and Pashto.

Mujahid said any future relations between the Taliban and the United States should be based on "sound diplomatic and economic principles" rather than conflict.

The Taliban have not formally responded to the news that Trump had decided to withdraw roughly half of the 14,000 US troops in Afghanistan.&nbsp;

But a senior commander told AFP that the group was "more than happy". The Taliban have long insisted on the withdrawal of foreign troops as a condition for engaging in peace talks.

The White House has so far not confirmed the widely-publicised move that left foreign diplomats and Afghan officials in Kabul stunned and dismayed.&nbsp;

It came last week as US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad met with the Taliban in Abu Dhabi, part of efforts to bring the militants to the negotiating table with Kabul.

That was the latest in a series of meetings between US officials and representatives of the Talian that began in the summer.

There are fears Trump's decision could undermine Khalilzad's negotiating position, embolden the Taliban, and further erode morale among Afghan forces, which are suffering record losses.

The Taliban warned the United States Thursday it would face the same fate as the Soviet Union in the 1980s if it did not leave Afghanistan, as Washington considers slashing troop numbers.

The Taliban warned the United States Thursday it would face the same fate as the Soviet Union in the 1980s if it did not leave Afghanistan, as Washington considers slashing troop numbers. In a taunting message sent on the 39th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of the war-torn country, the Taliban said US forces faced "humiliation" and could "learn a great deal" from the experience of their Cold War foe. Also read: US offers to release Afghan Taliban captives, jobs in return of ceasefire The Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989, ending a decade-long occupation and precipitating a bloody civil war and the emergence of the Taliban. "Take heed from the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan and abandon thoughts of testing the mettle of the already proven Afghans," Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said in a statement in English, Dari and Pashto. Mujahid said any future relations between the Taliban and the United States should be based on "sound diplomatic and economic principles" rather than conflict. The Taliban have not formally responded to the news that Trump had decided to withdraw roughly half of the 14,000 US troops in Afghanistan. But a senior commander told AFP that the group was "more than happy". The Taliban have long insisted on the withdrawal of foreign troops as a condition for engaging in peace talks. The White House has so far not confirmed the widely-publicised move that left foreign diplomats and Afghan officials in Kabul stunned and dismayed. It came last week as US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad met with the Taliban in Abu Dhabi, part of efforts to bring the militants to the negotiating table with Kabul. That was the latest in a series of meetings between US officials and representatives of the Talian that began in the summer. There are fears Trump's decision could undermine Khalilzad's negotiating position, embolden the Taliban, and further erode morale among Afghan forces, which are suffering record losses.

Taliban urge US to exit Afghanistan or face Soviet-style defeat

As the world powers including Russia, Iran are holding talks with Taliban leaders to seek a way out of the Afghan conflict, the United States has outlined a plan to carry out confidence-building measures to persuade the rebels to join the peace process.

According to&nbsp;sources, the US has assured the Taliban a safety network including job opportunities for the insurgents after they pull out from the war-torn country.

Under the plan, the US wants the Taliban to opt for a ceasefire in return for the release of their captive leaders.&nbsp;

The US also assured to delist some Taliban leaders as part of their confidence-building measures. It will also unfreeze their accounts and remove travel restrictions.

The report also said that the US has requested Pakistan to get Taliban on the negotiating table.

Meanwhile, US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad in his second trip to Pakistan thanked Pakistan's leadership for playing their role in the Afghan peace talks.

After the US request, Taliban chief reportedly has done major changes in their team which negotiated with Washington and other stakeholders in Abu Dhabi.

Earlier this month, Taliban held talks with US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad in the United Arab Emirates. The talks were aimed at renewing the Afghan peace process and eventually winding down America's longest war which began in 2001 with US invasion.

The Taliban controls vast amounts of Afghanistan's territory and are causing significant Afghan troop casualties. 
&nbsp;

Under the plan, the US wants the Taliban to opt for a ceasefire in return for the release of their captive leaders.

As the world powers including Russia, Iran are holding talks with Taliban leaders to seek a way out of the Afghan conflict, the United States has outlined a plan to carry out confidence-building measures to persuade the rebels to join the peace process. According to sources, the US has assured the Taliban a safety network including job opportunities for the insurgents after they pull out from the war-torn country. Under the plan, the US wants the Taliban to opt for a ceasefire in return for the release of their captive leaders. The US also assured to delist some Taliban leaders as part of their confidence-building measures. It will also unfreeze their accounts and remove travel restrictions. The report also said that the US has requested Pakistan to get Taliban on the negotiating table. Meanwhile, US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad in his second trip to Pakistan thanked Pakistan's leadership for playing their role in the Afghan peace talks. After the US request, Taliban chief reportedly has done major changes in their team which negotiated with Washington and other stakeholders in Abu Dhabi. Earlier this month, Taliban held talks with US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad in the United Arab Emirates. The talks were aimed at renewing the Afghan peace process and eventually winding down America's longest war which began in 2001 with US invasion. The Taliban controls vast amounts of Afghanistan's territory and are causing significant Afghan troop casualties.

US offers to release Afghan Taliban captives, jobs in return of ceasefire

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-fabricating-facts-on-hacking-should-stop-smearing-china-on-cyber-security-foreign-ministry-185574">US</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-fabricating-facts-on-hacking-should-stop-smearing-china-on-cyber-security-foreign-ministry-185574"> fabricating facts on </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-fabricating-facts-on-hacking-should-stop-smearing-china-on-cyber-security-foreign-ministry-185574">hacking,</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-fabricating-facts-on-hacking-should-stop-smearing-china-on-cyber-security-foreign-ministry-185574"> should stop smearing China on </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-fabricating-facts-on-hacking-should-stop-smearing-china-on-cyber-security-foreign-ministry-185574">cyber security</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-fabricating-facts-on-hacking-should-stop-smearing-china-on-cyber-security-foreign-ministry-185574">: Foreign ministry</a>

Beijing on Friday accused Washington of 'fabricating facts' after the US Justice Department indicted two hackers tied to Chinese security services who allegedly targeted companies and agencies in a dozen countries.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/it-is-right-for-me-to-step-down-us-defense-secretary-jim-mattis-quits-185565">US </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/it-is-right-for-me-to-step-down-us-defense-secretary-jim-mattis-quits-185565">defense</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/it-is-right-for-me-to-step-down-us-defense-secretary-jim-mattis-quits-185565"> secretary Jim Mattis quits; cites differences with Trump</a>

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis resigned on Thursday, a day after President Donald Trump stunned the US establishment by ordering a troop withdrawal from Syria.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-to-withdraw-significant-number-of-troops-from-afghanistan-official-185569">Trump to cut troops in Afghanistan: US official</a>

President Donald Trump has decided to pull a significant number of troops from Afghanistan, a US official told AFP on Thursday, a day after he announced a withdrawal from Syria.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/sri-lanka-political-crisis-ends-as-president-sirisena-names-new-cabinet-185567">Sri Lanka political crisis ends as President Sirisena names new cabinet</a>

Sri Lanka's President Maithripala Sirisena named a 30-member cabinet Thursday to end a crippling seven-week power struggle with his prime minister, but only after a final tussle over who should control the police.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/resolutely-opposed-to-us-legislation-on-tibet-china-185578">Resolutely oppose US legislation on Tibet: China</a>

China denounced the United States on Thursday for passing a new law on restive Tibet, saying it was "resolutely opposed" to the US legislation on what China considers an internal affair, and it risked causing "serious harm" to their relations.

&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

US fabricating facts on hacking, should stop smearing China on cyber security: Foreign ministry Beijing on Friday accused Washington of 'fabricating facts' after the US Justice Department indicted two hackers tied to Chinese security services who allegedly targeted companies and agencies in a dozen countries.

US fabricating facts on hacking, should stop smearing China on cyber security: Foreign ministry Beijing on Friday accused Washington of 'fabricating facts' after the US Justice Department indicted two hackers tied to Chinese security services who allegedly targeted companies and agencies in a dozen countries. US defense secretary Jim Mattis quits; cites differences with Trump Defense Secretary Jim Mattis resigned on Thursday, a day after President Donald Trump stunned the US establishment by ordering a troop withdrawal from Syria. Trump to cut troops in Afghanistan: US official President Donald Trump has decided to pull a significant number of troops from Afghanistan, a US official told AFP on Thursday, a day after he announced a withdrawal from Syria. Sri Lanka political crisis ends as President Sirisena names new cabinet Sri Lanka's President Maithripala Sirisena named a 30-member cabinet Thursday to end a crippling seven-week power struggle with his prime minister, but only after a final tussle over who should control the police. Resolutely oppose US legislation on Tibet: China China denounced the United States on Thursday for passing a new law on restive Tibet, saying it was "resolutely opposed" to the US legislation on what China considers an internal affair, and it risked causing "serious harm" to their relations.

News brief: Big stories of the day

President Donald Trump has decided to pull a significant number of troops from Afghanistan, a US official told AFP on Thursday, a day after he announced a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-islamic-state-defeated-us-will-pull-all-forces-out-of-syira-185369">withdrawal from Syria</a>.

"That decision has been made. There will be a significant withdrawal," the official told AFP on condition of anonymity.

Currently, the United States has about 14,000 troops in Afghanistan working either with a NATO mission to support Afghan forces or in separate counter-terrorism operations.&nbsp;

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/it-is-right-for-me-to-step-down-us-defense-secretary-jim-mattis-quits-185565">It is right for me to step down, says US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis&nbsp;</a>

Trump made his decision Tuesday, the same time he told the Pentagon he wanted to pull all US forces out of Syria.&nbsp;

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis quit earlier Thursday, saying his views were no longer reconcilable with Trump's.

The president's twin foreign policy decisions on Syria and Afghanistan are nothing less than epic, and could begin to unspool a series of cascading and unpredictable events across the Middle East and in Afghanistan.

Mattis and other top military advisors last year persuaded Trump to commit thousands of new troops to Afghanistan, where the Taliban were slaughtering local forces in the thousands and making major gains.

Trump at the time said his instinct was to get out of Afghanistan.

The Wall Street Journal reported that more than 7,000 troops would be returning from Afghanistan.

The pullout comes as the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-envoy-doubts-afghan-talibans-desire-for-peace-185562">US pushes for a peace deal with the Taliban</a>.

President Donald Trump has decided to pull a significant number of troops from Afghanistan, a US official told AFP on Thursday, a day after he announced a withdrawal from Syria.

President Donald Trump has decided to pull a significant number of troops from Afghanistan, a US official told AFP on Thursday, a day after he announced a withdrawal from Syria. "That decision has been made. There will be a significant withdrawal," the official told AFP on condition of anonymity. Currently, the United States has about 14,000 troops in Afghanistan working either with a NATO mission to support Afghan forces or in separate counter-terrorism operations. Also read: It is right for me to step down, says US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis Trump made his decision Tuesday, the same time he told the Pentagon he wanted to pull all US forces out of Syria. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis quit earlier Thursday, saying his views were no longer reconcilable with Trump's. The president's twin foreign policy decisions on Syria and Afghanistan are nothing less than epic, and could begin to unspool a series of cascading and unpredictable events across the Middle East and in Afghanistan. Mattis and other top military advisors last year persuaded Trump to commit thousands of new troops to Afghanistan, where the Taliban were slaughtering local forces in the thousands and making major gains. Trump at the time said his instinct was to get out of Afghanistan. The Wall Street Journal reported that more than 7,000 troops would be returning from Afghanistan. The pullout comes as the US pushes for a peace deal with the Taliban.

Trump to cut troops in Afghanistan: US official

A day after US&nbsp;President Trump announced the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-islamic-state-defeated-us-will-pull-all-forces-out-of-syira-185369">withdrawal of forces from Syria</a>, media reports from the US said&nbsp;that Washington will be <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-to-withdraw-significant-number-of-troops-from-afghanistan-official-185569">withdrawing 7,000 troops from Afghanistan</a>.

According to a New York Times report, "the Trump administration is withdrawing roughly 7,000 troops from Afghanistan in the coming months."&nbsp;

The Wall Street Journal was the first to report the development.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/it-is-right-for-me-to-step-down-us-defense-secretary-jim-mattis-quits-185565">It is right for me to step down, says US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis&nbsp;</a>

The Pentagon is, however, mum on the development. In a reply to WION's question, Pentagon said, "have nothing to provide."

The development can have a major impact in the region especially with India playing an important developmental role in the war-torn country. In recent months hectic talks have been&nbsp;going on to stabilise the country - from the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-envoy-doubts-afghan-talibans-desire-for-peace-185562">US talking to the Taliban</a>, to Russia-led Moscow talks and China leading tri-party talks between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Taliban recently held talks with the US in Abu Dhabi. The main point of contention from the group has been "withdrawal of foreign troops".

Meanwhile, earlier this week, Russian special envoy for &nbsp;Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov was in India for regular bilateral consultations between India and Russia on Afghanistan. The Russian special envoy held delegation-level talks with joint secretary (PAI) Deepak Mittal and called on foreign secretary Vijay Gokhale.&nbsp;

Giving details on the meeting, the&nbsp;ministry of external affairs spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said: "Both sides reiterated support for Afghan-led and Afghan-owned inclusive peace and reconciliation process."

The Russian side briefed the Indian side their efforts to support the Afghan peace process through the Moscow-format talks. It agreed to "maintain regular bilateral consultations and coordination to promote peace, security, stability, unity and prosperity in Afghanistan."

Earlier this year, India had informally participated in Moscow talks in which the Taliban also participated. India had sent two&nbsp;former envoys - Amar Sinha, who was India's ambassador to Afghanistan and TCA Raghavan, India's envoy to Pakistan to participate in the meet.

A day after US President Trump announced the withdrawal of forces from Syria, media reports from the US said that Washington will be withdrawing 7,000 troops from Afghanistan.

A day after US President Trump announced the withdrawal of forces from Syria, media reports from the US said that Washington will be withdrawing 7,000 troops from Afghanistan. According to a New York Times report, "the Trump administration is withdrawing roughly 7,000 troops from Afghanistan in the coming months." The Wall Street Journal was the first to report the development. Also read: It is right for me to step down, says US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis The Pentagon is, however, mum on the development. In a reply to WION's question, Pentagon said, "have nothing to provide." The development can have a major impact in the region especially with India playing an important developmental role in the war-torn country. In recent months hectic talks have been going on to stabilise the country - from the US talking to the Taliban, to Russia-led Moscow talks and China leading tri-party talks between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taliban recently held talks with the US in Abu Dhabi. The main point of contention from the group has been "withdrawal of foreign troops". Meanwhile, earlier this week, Russian special envoy for Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov was in India for regular bilateral consultations between India and Russia on Afghanistan. The Russian special envoy held delegation-level talks with joint secretary (PAI) Deepak Mittal and called on foreign secretary Vijay Gokhale. Giving details on the meeting, the ministry of external affairs spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said: "Both sides reiterated support for Afghan-led and Afghan-owned inclusive peace and reconciliation process." The Russian side briefed the Indian side their efforts to support the Afghan peace process through the Moscow-format talks. It agreed to "maintain regular bilateral consultations and coordination to promote peace, security, stability, unity and prosperity in Afghanistan." Earlier this year, India had informally participated in Moscow talks in which the Taliban also participated. India had sent two former envoys - Amar Sinha, who was India's ambassador to Afghanistan and TCA Raghavan, India's envoy to Pakistan to participate in the meet.

Nothing to provide, says Pentagon to WION on reports of US cutting troops in Afghanistan

US&nbsp;President Donald Trump said on Thursday the United States was "in very strong" peace negotiations in Afghanistan but he did not known whether they would be successful.

"I really think the people of Afghanistan ... are tired of fighting," Trump told reporters after delivering a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/donald-trump-hints-could-make-first-visit-to-afghanistan-178908">Thanksgiving holiday message</a> to US&nbsp;troops in Afghanistan, scene of one of America's longest-ever wars.

"We are talking about peace and we'll see if that happens ... We have negotiations going on. I don't know that they are going to be successful, probably they're not. Who knows? They might be, they might not be."

Trump was speaking after Taliban leaders met with US&nbsp;special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad at their political headquarters in Qatar last week for the second time in the past month.

Khalilzad said on Sunday he hoped to reach a peace deal by April 20, a deadline that coincides with the date set for presidential elections in Afghanistan.

However, the Taliban said their three-day meeting with Khalilzad to pave the way for peace talks ended with no agreement on any issue and they had not accepted any deadline set by the United States to wrap up talks.

Khalilzad's public statement that the Taliban believe they will "not win militarily" apparently angered senior members of the group, who warned US&nbsp;officials against mixed messages that could muddle the peace process.

US&nbsp;troops invaded Afghanistan in 2001 as part of a campaign to topple the Taliban following the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States. Some 14,000 US&nbsp;personnel are still there.

The Taliban have strengthened their grip over the past three years, with the government in Kabul controlling just 56 per cent of Afghanistan, down from 72 per cent in 2015, a US&nbsp;government report showed this month.

Two senior US officials confirmed this week that a second round of peace talks ended last week and the Taliban expected Khalilzad to visit Qatar for a meeting before the end of 2018.

Trump hinted he may go to Afghanistan, a country he has yet to visit almost two years into his presidency, even though previous US&nbsp;commanders-in-chief have routinely visited troops in active war zones.

Trump told troops in the teleconference that while they were fighting, he was taking tough action to secure the southern borders of the United States from illegal immigration.

"You are doing it over there; we are doing it over here," he said.

"We have a very powerful border now ... We took old broken wall and we wrapped it with barbed wire plus ... nobody is getting through these walls and we're going to make sure they're the right people because that's what you and your family want," he said.

"That's why we're all fighting – you know, we're fighting for borders, we're fighting for our country."

US President Donald Trump said on Thursday the United States was "in very strong" peace negotiations in Afghanistan but he did not known whether they would be successful.

US President Donald Trump said on Thursday the United States was "in very strong" peace negotiations in Afghanistan but he did not known whether they would be successful. "I really think the people of Afghanistan ... are tired of fighting," Trump told reporters after delivering a Thanksgiving holiday message to US troops in Afghanistan, scene of one of America's longest-ever wars. "We are talking about peace and we'll see if that happens ... We have negotiations going on. I don't know that they are going to be successful, probably they're not. Who knows? They might be, they might not be." Trump was speaking after Taliban leaders met with US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad at their political headquarters in Qatar last week for the second time in the past month. Khalilzad said on Sunday he hoped to reach a peace deal by April 20, a deadline that coincides with the date set for presidential elections in Afghanistan. However, the Taliban said their three-day meeting with Khalilzad to pave the way for peace talks ended with no agreement on any issue and they had not accepted any deadline set by the United States to wrap up talks. Khalilzad's public statement that the Taliban believe they will "not win militarily" apparently angered senior members of the group, who warned US officials against mixed messages that could muddle the peace process. US troops invaded Afghanistan in 2001 as part of a campaign to topple the Taliban following the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States. Some 14,000 US personnel are still there. The Taliban have strengthened their grip over the past three years, with the government in Kabul controlling just 56 per cent of Afghanistan, down from 72 per cent in 2015, a US government report showed this month. Two senior US officials confirmed this week that a second round of peace talks ended last week and the Taliban expected Khalilzad to visit Qatar for a meeting before the end of 2018. Trump hinted he may go to Afghanistan, a country he has yet to visit almost two years into his presidency, even though previous US commanders-in-chief have routinely visited troops in active war zones. Trump told troops in the teleconference that while they were fighting, he was taking tough action to secure the southern borders of the United States from illegal immigration. "You are doing it over there; we are doing it over here," he said. "We have a very powerful border now ... We took old broken wall and we wrapped it with barbed wire plus ... nobody is getting through these walls and we're going to make sure they're the right people because that's what you and your family want," he said. "That's why we're all fighting – you know, we're fighting for borders, we're fighting for our country."

Trump says US in 'very strong' negotiations in Afghanistan

The Afghan Taliban denounced "American occupying forces" for attacking their Voice of Shariah radio station in the central province of Ghazni, but the United States denied the charge and said Afghan air force planes had targeted a broadcasting tower.

The "Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate" will "not show restraint regarding such evil enemy actions any more", the Taliban said of Sunday's attack which they said involved five US aircraft.

"The claimants of democracy and freedom of speech exposed their true nature and showed that they have absolutely no respect for the views, voice and media of their opposition," the Taliban, who have hit media targets themselves in the past, said in a statement.

"They only use the slogans of 'freedom of speech' to force their own views, culture and colonial agendas on foreign nations."

In 2016, seven Tolo TV employees were killed by a Taliban suicide attacker who rammed a car bomb into a bus driving them home from the station. The Taliban had warned earlier that they considered journalists legitimate targets.

A spokesman for the NATO-led Resolute Support mission said the Taliban statement "speaks volumes with regards to the capabilities" of the Afghan air force.

"It was two Afghan Air Force A-29s (not five US aircraft) that conducted the strike on a Taliban radio broadcasting tower (not radio station) on June 10," Lieutenant-Colonel Martin O'Donnell said.

The Taliban, seeking to reimpose strict Islamic law after their 2001 ouster at the hands of US-led troops, announced a surprise ceasefire over the Eid al-Fitr holiday beginning at the end of this week, but said attacks against foreign forces would continue.

Earlier, the government announced a truce for the end-of-Ramadan holiday.

US President Donald Trump in August unveiled a more hawkish military approach to Afghanistan under the Resolute Support mission, including a surge in air strikes, aimed at forcing the Taliban to the negotiating table.

The Taliban, seeking to reimpose strict Islamic law after their 2001 ouster at the hands of US-led troops, announced a surprise ceasefire over the Eid al-Fitr holiday beginning at the end of this week.

The Afghan Taliban denounced "American occupying forces" for attacking their Voice of Shariah radio station in the central province of Ghazni, but the United States denied the charge and said Afghan air force planes had targeted a broadcasting tower. The "Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate" will "not show restraint regarding such evil enemy actions any more", the Taliban said of Sunday's attack which they said involved five US aircraft. "The claimants of democracy and freedom of speech exposed their true nature and showed that they have absolutely no respect for the views, voice and media of their opposition," the Taliban, who have hit media targets themselves in the past, said in a statement. "They only use the slogans of 'freedom of speech' to force their own views, culture and colonial agendas on foreign nations." In 2016, seven Tolo TV employees were killed by a Taliban suicide attacker who rammed a car bomb into a bus driving them home from the station. The Taliban had warned earlier that they considered journalists legitimate targets. A spokesman for the NATO-led Resolute Support mission said the Taliban statement "speaks volumes with regards to the capabilities" of the Afghan air force. "It was two Afghan Air Force A-29s (not five US aircraft) that conducted the strike on a Taliban radio broadcasting tower (not radio station) on June 10," Lieutenant-Colonel Martin O'Donnell said. The Taliban, seeking to reimpose strict Islamic law after their 2001 ouster at the hands of US-led troops, announced a surprise ceasefire over the Eid al-Fitr holiday beginning at the end of this week, but said attacks against foreign forces would continue. Earlier, the government announced a truce for the end-of-Ramadan holiday. US President Donald Trump in August unveiled a more hawkish military approach to Afghanistan under the Resolute Support mission, including a surge in air strikes, aimed at forcing the Taliban to the negotiating table.

'American occupying forces' attacked Voice of Shariah radio station: Taliban

The United States wasted billions of dollars trying to stabilize fragile parts of Afghanistan from 2001-2017 and some efforts caused more harm than good, a US government watchdog said&nbsp;Thursday.

A report by the office of the Special Inspector for Afghanistan Reconstruction found that Washington had set unrealistic expectations for itself after the US-led invasion in 2001 and massively overestimated its ability to build and reform government institutions.

"Despite some heroic efforts to stabilize insecure and contested areas in Afghanistan between 2002 and 2017, the program mostly failed," Special Inspector General John Sopko said as he presented the report in Washington.

"This happened for a number of reasons, including the establishment of a set of unrealistic expectations about what could be achieved in just a few years' time."

The report found that the military pressured aid groups to build schools and infrastructure in areas that were still being contested by the Taliban, leading to the failure of many projects.

Most of the $4.7 billion in stabilization funds were spent after 2009 when a surge in troops to Afghanistan saw large area cleared of the Taliban -- a rush of Western experts then tried to build institutions in these areas.

But the "large sums of stabilization dollars the United States devoted to Afghanistan in search of quick gains often exacerbated conflicts, enabled corruption and bolstered support for insurgents," the report states.

"Opportunities for corruption and elite capture abounded, making many of those projects far more harmful than helpful," it adds.

The SIGAR analysis found that Washington had set expectations and programs not properly tailored for Afghanistan, and noted that successes in stabilizing Afghan districts rarely lasted longer than the physical presence of coalition troops and civilians.

"Under immense pressure to quickly stabilize insecure districts, US government agencies spent far too much money, far too quickly, in a country woefully unprepared to absorb it," SIGAR noted.

'Despite some heroic efforts to stabilize insecure and contested areas in Afghanistan between 2002 and 2017, the program mostly failed,' Special Inspector General John Sopko said

The United States wasted billions of dollars trying to stabilize fragile parts of Afghanistan from 2001-2017 and some efforts caused more harm than good, a US government watchdog said Thursday. A report by the office of the Special Inspector for Afghanistan Reconstruction found that Washington had set unrealistic expectations for itself after the US-led invasion in 2001 and massively overestimated its ability to build and reform government institutions. "Despite some heroic efforts to stabilize insecure and contested areas in Afghanistan between 2002 and 2017, the program mostly failed," Special Inspector General John Sopko said as he presented the report in Washington. "This happened for a number of reasons, including the establishment of a set of unrealistic expectations about what could be achieved in just a few years' time." The report found that the military pressured aid groups to build schools and infrastructure in areas that were still being contested by the Taliban, leading to the failure of many projects. Most of the $4.7 billion in stabilization funds were spent after 2009 when a surge in troops to Afghanistan saw large area cleared of the Taliban -- a rush of Western experts then tried to build institutions in these areas. But the "large sums of stabilization dollars the United States devoted to Afghanistan in search of quick gains often exacerbated conflicts, enabled corruption and bolstered support for insurgents," the report states. "Opportunities for corruption and elite capture abounded, making many of those projects far more harmful than helpful," it adds. The SIGAR analysis found that Washington had set expectations and programs not properly tailored for Afghanistan, and noted that successes in stabilizing Afghan districts rarely lasted longer than the physical presence of coalition troops and civilians. "Under immense pressure to quickly stabilize insecure districts, US government agencies spent far too much money, far too quickly, in a country woefully unprepared to absorb it," SIGAR noted.

US wasted billions in failed Afghan stabilization efforts: Official

us-afghanistan-0

Us Afghanistan, News on Us Afghanistan, stories on Us Afghanistan, articles on Us Afghanistan, Us Afghanistan stories at Wion, Us Afghanistan news, Us Afghanistan latest news

us afghanistan-0